| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
EU to force Microsoft to license Windows info for pittance | |
|
||
| Time: 00:57 EST/05:57 GMT | News Source: Yahoo News | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
The European Commission will force Microsoft to hand over what the US software giant claims is sensitive and valuable technical information about its Windows operating system for almost no compensation, the Financial Times reported Wednesday, citing a confidential document. The world's biggest software maker is required to license the technical information to competing groups under the terms of the European CommissionÂ’s antitrust ruling issued three years ago, the newspaper said. The Commission last month accused Microsoft of demanding excessive royalties from licences. Microsoft wants as much as 5.95 percent of companies server revenues to license the information. But the FT said the confidential statement of objections from the Commission "makes clear that Microsoft will at best be allowed to levy a tiny fraction of the royalties it is demanding." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 363 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:24:33 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 3653 (68.52.143.149) at 4/5/2007 3:31:14 AM |
|
hitler would have made Microsoft do the same thing... only slightly faster.
again... nothing but punishing an American company for being successful. Microsoft is an Ameircan icon, not unlike the World Trade Center. Its a SYMBOL and the pE-yU is simply trying to take down an American icon. Just like the terrorist did with the WTC. Please dont take this as trivializing the WTC tragedy. That couldn't be further from my intent. |
| #2 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 4/5/2007 5:04:10 AM |
|
#1, You are quite right - the examples illustrate EU and other international efforts to blunt American power. There are even better examples - excise taxes the EU imposes - and their citizens complain about the apparently high relative price of Microsoft software in the EU... they need to look at their own governments and their continuous efforts to rob people as they come and go in and out of the EU.
It's an ancient mob - institutionalized corruption sanctioned by the ruling elite - so long as they keep getting their cut. The peoples of Europe deserve better. The attacks on the WTC, The Pentagon, PA, Khobar, our embassies, and the USS Cole were acts of war - the tragedy is that we have not fully embraced the fact that we are in a global war and we have two choices, we can fight it and win, or we can surrender and be killed. Oh wait... I guess we could renounce all we know... embrace Islam and reject any form of modernity - rendering any discussion opposite technology irrelevant. That last option, seems to appeal to the EU more than facing the facts presented all around them. They're going to screw around and screw around until they drag us into yet another catastrophy born of yet another example of how much easier it is to bend over in the short term, rather than stand up for what they know is right. |
| #3 By 37047 (74.101.157.125) at 4/5/2007 6:14:00 AM |
| So let me see if I understand both of you correctly. When the EU or other government imposes tariffs or other sanctions on the USA, it is an act of war, but when the USA does the exact same thing to other countries (such as the softwood lumber tariff against Canada, for example), that is perfectly acceptable? The hypocrisy in ActiveWhine is staggering much of the time. When Microsoft screws the consumers, it is just good business, maximizing shareholder value. When someone does the same thing to Microsoft, it is an act of terrorism against the USA. What a bunch of macaroons (to quote a certain rabbit). |
| #4 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 4/5/2007 8:01:49 AM |
|
#3, No, when murderers murder innocent people in cold blood as a function of the execution of their stated policies, it is an act of war. When these same entities burn thousands of people alive, or cursh them into dust in living color, then these are acts of war. When people attack and burn sailors in a warship that in a time of peace, these are acts of war. When international embassies are bombed and hundreds of innocent people are blown to bits, they are also examples of acts of war. At least be clear about that. Save your broad, misguided brush for painting the barn.
When governments and multi-national organizations impose price controls on international corporations to the benefit of other international businesses and corporations, it is unfair, inappropriate and frankly, stupid. It reflects how truly dim and corrupt they are. That sort of nonsense will be their undoing. Tariffs on soft-lumber reflect controls on otherwise run away policies that were designed to benefit Canada and Mexico at the expense of American workers - NAFTA did nothing but move American factories 100 miles further north and anyone that has ever flown into Toronto and took the time to look down is aware of this. Similarly, and with equally devastating results, NAFTA destroyed the textile industry in the south and bankrupted millions of poor families living in places like "Millville, Alabama" While they aren't acts of war, it is hard to explain how they are in any way friendly to the millions of people devastated by such actions - many of which have not, nor will they ever recover. |
| #5 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 4/5/2007 8:12:06 AM |
|
#3: Probably the result of an insular, jingoistic culture, where it's OK for them to do unto others, but not OK for others to do unto them. Typical, really.
|
| #6 By 3339 (72.200.128.183) at 4/5/2007 8:20:06 AM |
|
5+% of REVENUE is absurd. That's not 5% of profit, but revenue.
Meanwhile Microsoft claims that $.25 per device is too expensive for an mpeg4 codec? (I'm not saying server compatibility is the same as a codec... just showing it as a sign of hypocrisy.) This doesn't allow these companies to steal the tech and build their own Windows Server products; it's just to be compatible with Windows Server products. |
| #7 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 4/5/2007 8:28:25 AM |
| #1,2: Forgetting for the briefest of moments your undying fealty to MS, how is this bad? They have to let others license their API to better interoperate with, and not replace, Microsoft. This may be bad for MS' lock-in and monopoly-maintenance plans, but it's good for everyone else on the planet. Arguing against it is about as dumb as when Parkkker was arguing against open document standards. Of course, his opinion changed the instant MS debuted MSXML, but that's a story for another day... |
| #8 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 4/5/2007 9:57:15 AM |
|
#1 and 2: I agree with what you both are saying. The United States has done more than it's fair share of good acts for the rest of the world. In return, we get all the nasty things you mentioned or short-term Frenchie memory.
The EU MSFT "tax" decision is designed to line the pockets of the ruling elite. This is identical to NAFTA, where the only people who really benefit are the wealthy business owners and the bureaucrats getting their pockets lined. The "average joe" trying to make ends meet is still living from paycheck to paycheck. #3: What a bunch of macaroons. Yummy! #7: While we hold MSFT, and it's zealotry here, to task, I have to disagree with you about this. |
| #9 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 4/5/2007 10:19:49 AM |
| #8: Finally, some debate and not just poo-flinging. Why do you disagree? Nothing in the server comm protocols is innovative, so it's not like MS has to give up precious IP. And MS has paid lip service to interoperability so where's the problem? |
| #10 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 4/5/2007 11:13:35 AM |
| #9, Latch, I just looked up "poo flinger" in the dictionary - I have to say, that is a terrible picture of you - did they lift it from your passport? <kidding, of course> |
| #11 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 4/5/2007 11:50:26 AM |
| #10: np, I can take a joke when it's a joke. |
| #12 By 3653 (68.52.143.149) at 4/5/2007 6:13:36 PM |
|
Lets all just stop quoting 5.95% right now. Thats the MAXIMUM rate. See the entire rate chart here...
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/intellectualproperty/protocols/wspp/pricing.mspx Jesus H., talk about FLEXIBILITY. With no guidance from the E.U., Microsoft came up with FOUR seperate royalty plans. Take your pick. But WHATEVER you do... make sure and quote the highest possible rate, and the most acutely expensive royalty plan... when you speak to the media. |
| #13 By 76600 (83.100.231.181) at 4/6/2007 3:38:50 AM |
|
1. Being English and living in the UK (part of the EU) I can see where the EU are coming from on this one... this IS NOT merely a case of the EU "picking on a US company because they are successful" but more that they see that Microsoft taking unfair advantage of certain markets and places like the UK in particular.
2. An example of this is that MS were GIVING AWAY Windows Vista in the US in exchange for your old copy of Windows XP. At the time this was happening we over this side of the pond couldnt even BUY the damned thing unless we bought a COMPLETE NEW COMPUTER. Even now post release the price over here is far more than you US citizens would have to pay. 3. Again over here we dont get and cant get official support from MS for their OEM versions, which carry their name/logo/EULA, and from which they quite rightly derive a revenue stream. Its small wonder that Microsoft are known far and wide over here by their pseudonym "MacroShite".... (Macro being a shortcut to somthing) |
| #14 By 76631 (87.194.38.232) at 4/6/2007 4:36:19 PM |
| This could be perceived as as anti-US move were it not for the fact that the companies that are complaining about MS's non-compliance with an earlier ruling are ... errr ... American (IBM, Sun, Oracle, ...) |
| #15 By 12071 (203.26.206.130) at 4/6/2007 11:43:40 PM |
|
#14 Shhhhh! Don't mention that! Otherwise we will miss out on the huge anti-EU essays from lketchum that I do love to read so much! Well not so much anti-EU as pro-US, but you get the point, he and a few others here think that the US is epitome of everything that is good! What they forgot to mention is that it's also the epitome of everything that's bad... but well, you can't mention that! I look forward to his "supreme US" comments which he comes out with at least on a monthly basis... its very similar to the "supreme Nazi" comments that the Germans used to come out with.
And then there's mooresa... who invoked Godwin's Law before we all even had a chance to comment! And he even used the word "terrorists"! I mean, that above all should strike fear into the hearts of every red blooded american! Sure you're had close to the worst international policies known to man kind... but that can't have anything to do with it! Those terrorists hate your freedom... yes that's it.... it's got nothing to do with you going in and taking over their countries, taking their resources, telling them how best to run their governments... nah, it's not of that.... it's YOUR freedom that they hate so much.... and for more bullshit like this just listen to Bill O'Reilly! (I wonder what kind of interesting dialog we'd hate if Bill and lketchum teamed up! - they would have to extend his segment just to fit it all in to start with!) See, you and I and quite a few other people here realise that America is what it really is, a country with some of the very best and some of the very worst things! For everything that makes it so great there are just as many horrible things on the flip side. And we all know that America only ever going to do something if it benefits them, that's normal human nature. But of course a few people here can't actually come out and say that! They need to hide it behind their bullshit supreme pro-US, anti-everyone else propoganda. It's as moronic as the whole "French/Freedom Fries" thing.... because half the American's and the rest of the world knew that fries did not come from France... but don't EVER let facts get in the way of a good supreme US pitch! Boo to the EU who is doing nothing that attempting to stifle the most innovative company to have ever been created, one of American dominance and superiority! |
| #16 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 4/7/2007 4:18:08 AM |
|
#15, 14, Gosh I sure envy you - you are so fortunate [I mean that with every measure of sincerity].
Selfishly, I wish it were still that simple for me - I wish, given how futile taking a position actually is, it were as simple as you suggest. Problem is, it isn't that simple and the realities attending the world are often as complex as they are brutal. I know one thing, one has to take a side - one side, and fight for it. While it may seem safe in the middle and it can buy a few years of peace, sooner or later someone that doesn't quite agree with all of what you have to say, or think, who has chosen a side, will come and blow your brains out. Sooner or later some more decided man won't let you ride it out in the middle. If one man comes it's safe to treat it as a crime - if he brings more than a few friends, one has to call it war. Fortunately, there is some history, however, brief, that we may examine. The United States has engaged in many foreign wars. It never kept any of the lands it fought on - instead it gave them back and spent its treasure to restore them for the people it helped to defeat. Ok, we kept enough land to bury our dead in, but in all but recent times, that was okay with the people our armies liberated. I know we'll do the same again - give it back. If I hadn't spent most of my life in places with strange names and different people, I'd enjoy the relative peace and comfort found in the balance and objectivity of perfect ideals. Instead, I have to settle for more good things than bad things, while trying to present the same, and realize that as good as it gets is to work to improve the ratio while accepting the bad and confronting that needing to be improved. All while being loyal to the side one has had to choose. Perfectly imperfect. It isn't naive to think that sustaining such a posture will result in progress. I can remember so many times when all one could do is conclude, "God this sucks." - brief moments of self-indulgence and then back to work. Nothing is simple and less is perfect. Cont... |
| #17 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 4/7/2007 4:18:28 AM |
|
We can choose to point to a few greedy or desperate international companies that are flagged here in the U.S. and pretend that the EU is fundamentally good - it isn't and can't be when it is fundamentally corrupt and more interested in the well-being of the few at the expense of the many. We can pretend its ideas are new, but those that know would have to forget the ambitions of the churches during the reign of Henry the VIII and his more famous son - humanism, and all it attempted. Those are all big points... but it is the little examples that matter to me most -
I remember a kid, all of 20 - idealistic, bright, and full of ideas for a better and more just world. He questioned everything - found fault in everything - that kid hated me like few others ever have. He hated me for taking a side that wasn't perfect. One morning he was hit and was left screaming and clawing at the ground with a nasty wound to his head. He wasn't screaming for his mom, or against anyone, or anything - he was screaming for me - my name - over and over. I went to him and pulled him out and dressed his wound and held him in my arms like a small child. That boy clung to me like one of my kids. He buried his head in my chest and clung so tightly that he dug deep cuts into my arms. Once he was safe, I left him in more capable hands and he was headed home - back to where it is safe in the middle. Before he left I visited with him - held his hand and brushed away his tears. I know he tried to thank me, but he could not speak, but more importantly, he knew he didn't have to. I know he remembers what I told him - to remember that some of us have no choice. Someone has to take a stand, pick a side and fight. In a world as dangerous as ours, there is only one thing worse than being wrong and that is in the taking of a side that has no side at all - just a blob without definition - like some melted thing that no one can any longer recognize. That fate, worse than death. So, #15, yeah, we suck. We're imperfect, but trust me, there is far worse out there that is far less willing to suck less tomorrow. |
| #18 By 12071 (203.206.255.125) at 4/8/2007 9:51:10 PM |
|
#16 "I know one thing, one has to take a side - one side, and fight for it"
That's very well and good... as long as that one stops every now and then to re-evaluate their position, re-evaluate the facts, re-evaluate any new information. Because if they don't they've done nothing but take a position of blind faith and that's far more dangerous than ANY other option. Because a person like that will fight for their side no matter what, regardless of facts! Someone like that will write 7 paragraphs to push their position forward. What's a little odd is that they will finish those 7 paragraphs off by agreeing with a previous poster but arguing that their side is still the correct one, because there are worse sides out there! That's the definition of glass half empty my friend. Anyone, even slightly inclined, will try to better their side, not accept the status quo and fight for a better future, one with more, not less freedoms and one of fairness, where real morals and ethics have a shot in life. You on the other hand, are just happy to know that there's someone else worse out there and until the day where YOU happen to be the worst out there, you can continue doing whatever you like with your blind faith. Good luck to you! Some of us here look upon the entire world a little more realistically, understanding that not being the worst doesn't make you right in your actions. And from the World's response, it should be VERY clear, to all but those of utter blind faith, that what you're doing is wrong! |
| #19 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 4/9/2007 8:03:13 AM |
|
#18: Well put!
The new motto for the USA: "We suck less." Not a glowing recommendation. |
| #20 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 4/9/2007 10:33:50 AM |
|
Remember the Inquisition.
Europe has a long history of Inquisitorial "Justice" including the current courts in France that have stained the administration of "justice". In Europe, Judges have huge amounts of power that they abuse all the time. The star chamber that is trying to steal Microsofts IP are politicians/thiefocrats who are as open minded about competition as Al Gore is open minded on being chicken little. |
| #21 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 4/9/2007 10:53:57 AM |
|
#15: ...and a few others here think that the US is epitome of everything that is good!
Far, far more good than bad. #18: happy to know that there's someone else worse out there and until the day where YOU happen to be the worst out there, you can continue doing whatever you like with your blind faith. I started to write a long response about the sacrifice our soldiers and tax payers have made over many years and many wars to help protect those nations that could not adequately defend themselves, but I know that there is no convincing the history ignorant and ungrateful youth of other nations. It gets old listening to the anti-US, anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-business, anti-everything US rhetoric and the abundance of hateful words spewed against America. However, in the end, even with all the rhetoric and hateful words, other nations will still be able to depend on America to come to their aid. |
| #22 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 4/9/2007 11:40:11 AM |
|
#21, no kidding. I spent all of last August recovering again - yet another operation to remove yet more metal - this time following an infection in my neck where the scar tissue had blocked a lot of ducts. It makes it damn hard to be thought of in the same way one views a Nazi - as #15 put it. It was hard work learning to speak again. Sad.
I also wrote a long response, but knew it wouldn't do any good - after all, we served so people could speak their minds - no matter how foolishly, or hurtfully they might do so. In many ways, when young men justify their cowardice, it reflects how well we did our jobs. Some days that is all one has to fall back on to make it though another day. Part of what I wanted #19 and #18 to think on: Clearly you did not read my posts - or chose to take from them only that which helps you justify cowardice. You think it is possible for any nation, or any large company to do any one thing and it is zero sum - that no one gets hurt? Grow up. The world isn't wired that way and when it comes down to it, you either win, or you lose. So it comes down to which side one wants to see win. If you want to return to the middle ages, cool - pick your side and stay right there. You think matters don't often come down to the lesser of evils? Right.... I bet you slip on some flip-flops each day as you pass your parked car on your way to work, because it burns fuel... and you never eat, not even salad, because... well that's a living thing, too... This post was edited by lketchum on Monday, April 09, 2007 at 11:44. |
| #23 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 4/9/2007 1:04:43 PM |
|
#22: First, let me state that it was message #1, by Mini-Moore, that first invoked Nazi and Hitler retoric, not Chris Kabuki. Just to keep the record straight. Second, I read all of what you had to say. I never said that the US was completely evil. They did some great things, especially during WW I and II, as did Canada, where I have been born and raised. A lot of Canadians died for our freedom, too, in case you Americans want to forget that little fact. However, the US has also done things that were wrong. So has Canada. And by this, I mean the governments of these countries, more so than any particular individuals.
Some administrations have good track records, and some don't. The current Bush administration has a less than good reputation internationally. I am guessing that you are a Republican, supporting the Bush administration in all their decisions, good or bad, because Saddam was worse. Yes, Saddam was a terrible person and a vicious dictator. On the other hand, he had Iraq in a more stable state, with the warring factions under better control, than the allied forces there now do. Where does one draw the line? Maybe one of these days the US will invade the UK, because their Prime Minister does something that goes against the wishes of the US? Maybe Canada will be next to be invaded. It should be kept in mind, with all the retoric about WMDs, that the only nation to actually use nuclear weapons against a civilian or military target is the USA. So get off the high horse sitting on top of the soap box. All some of us are saying is that the US is not perfect, and has room for improvement, with suggested areas of improvement. Same with Microsoft and other mega-corporations in the US and elsewhere. Or don't you believe that the governments of the western industrialized countries have a responsibility to aid in the betterment of the world as a whole? And why shouldn'y mega-corps be held to the same ideals? Why is greed and self-centered ideals considered to be corporate rights? When did screwing the customer become an axiom of modern business practices? Whatever happened to the concept of corporations being good citizens? I should point out, for those who will purposely misinterpret my post, that I may condemn Microsoft for their behaviours and actions, but I laud Bill Gates for being a good global citizen and applaud all the work he is doing to make the world a better place for everyone and to rid us of some of the worst illnesses faced in the world today. I could also point to almost all banks, insurance companies, petroleum companies, etc., of utilizing the same sort of underhanded tactics that Microsoft does, but given that this is a technology based site, specifically pertaining to Microsoft and the Windows platform, Microsoft is the one that typically gets painted with that brush. That does not mean that other companies shouldn't and don't get painted with that brush elsewhere. That is enough rant for one post, I think. Otherwise, people will start to confuse me with Ketchum. :-) |
| #24 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 4/9/2007 1:33:29 PM |
|
#23 "he had Iraq in a more stable state, with the warring factions under better control, than the allied forces there now do."
By slaughtering them with chemical and biological weapons. The only reason the Kurds and Shiites weren't killed in even greater numbers were the two no-fly zones in the north and south of Iraq where Saddam fired and UK and US planes everyday with the intent to kill the pilots. If you think the US and UK weren't at war with Iraq from 1991-2003, you can read about some of the air strikes here: http://www.historyguy.com/no-fly_zone_war.html Operation Desert Strike September 3 and 4, 1996 U.S. vs. Iraq Retaliatory missile strike in response to Iraqi military actions. The United States fires 44 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Iraqi military targets. President Clinton extends the "no-fly zone" to cover parts of Baghdad and central Iraq. Operation Desert Fox December 16 through December 20, 1998 U.S. and Britain vs. Iraq Retaliatory missile and air strikes to punish Iraq for non-cooperation with UNSCOM's inspections. The U.S. and Britain attacked sites related to the production of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Targets hit included airfields, military command centers, suspected missile factories and an oil refinery. Bases and headquarters for Saddam's Republican Guard were also hit. As a result of these attacks, the Iraqi government declared an end to all UNSCOM inspections and said it would militarily challenge the "no-fly" zones. The status quo was costing the US 14.5 billion per year: "For more than a decade, enforcing no-fly zones and conducting weapons inspections contained the dictator at a fraction of the war's cost. Davis and his colleagues estimated that continuing that strategy would have cost of about $14.5 billion a year, a tenth of the cost of the Iraq war. But what if it failed? What if an increasingly troublesome Saddam Hussein provoked repeated military responses from the United States? What if he grew more powerful and eventually had to be overthown by force? What if he sponsored a terrorist attack on the United States? The Chicago team put the potential cost of such outcomes at anywhere between $50 billion and $700 billion." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/15/iraq/main2574891.shtml Typical canuck. I travel to Canada every once in a while. The newspapers and CBC are full of hate directed at the US and Israel (in reality jews) and fluffy whitewashes about Islamic terrorism ... just like your "stable state" comment. Saddam was one of the top 10 mass murders in the last 50 years. I'm pround Bush overthrew him. I'm ecstatic Saddams sons won't rule a terror state. And I'm damn glad that Al Quada is being fought in Iraq, instead of over here. |
| #25 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 4/9/2007 1:53:53 PM |
| #24: Your compassion is touching. And while Saddam was being a bad-ass, what was the US doing, besides paying him? You and all the rest of the right-wing only started to give a damn about the Iraqi people when it became convenient to do so, to validate Bush's ever-shifting justification for the war. Darfur has been in crisis for a few years now on a scale that makes Iraq look like a boy scout jamboree. I don't see the US Army rushing in to liberate all the oppressed people there. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 363 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:24:33 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
